So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

May/15/23 6:47:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a bill to establish the right to a healthy environment. However, this bill does not actually give Canadians such a right. In its current form, Bill S‑5 does not really give citizens a way to assert this right. Does my colleague acknowledge that this would depend on the government's goodwill or lack thereof? At the moment, it seems reasonable to question whether certain government actions show that it really wants to move in the direction of a meaningful right to a healthy environment.

92 words

May/15/23 6:34:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to extend condolences to everyone in his riding who has experienced this disaster. It is important to recognize that they are victims of climate change. My colleague talked a lot about the Senate, but I would like to remind him that the Liberals and the Conservatives did not listen to any environmental groups, unlike the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party, which made proposals based on information from environmental groups. I completely understand that the people of his riding want to promote economic development, but I am tired of people pitting environmental protection against economic development. I look forward to a day when the two are finally reconciled. In this case, unfortunately, the Liberal-Conservative coalition rejected everything the environmental groups were calling for.

142 words

Dec/12/22 1:30:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would remind the House that I was the one who moved the motion in support of Iranian women and the fight they are waging because of what is happening in Iran. I have been to some demonstrations with Iranian women, and this was something they were calling for. Bill S‑8 is one thing, but what happens next? Who will be targeted and affected by this bill? There is the whole issue of the Iranian regime and what this might include. It will be very interesting because these are important issues. This is another fight that is far from over, in another part of the world. I want to once again express just how strongly we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people who are demanding more justice and equality, especially for Iranian women.

146 words

All Topics

Dec/12/22 1:28:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to expand on that. To be clear, that was 2017. It was before the pandemic. It is true that the current context and what we have seen this year have put the issue of what we do with these criminals back on the agenda. I just hope that we will be able to work together to speed this bill through the process because these recommendations date back to well before the pandemic. It should have been done a lot faster. In particular, I hope the committee will be able to follow up. What we are hearing is interesting. How to administer this law is an interesting question. Voting for a bill is one thing, but following up and making sure it is implemented is another. We will look at the list of people who will be affected by the bill. Let us hope that goes better so we can move forward and fix some of the problems members have been raising this afternoon. That is my hope.

176 words

All Topics

Dec/12/22 1:26:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House today, including our own, are unanimous about wanting this bill to go forward. That is worth noting. In his question, my colleague spoke about a 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, this is 2022. He said that this was put forward again because of the Senate. It is strange that the government did not introduce this bill itself given the recommendations made in 2017. We have been waiting five years for something on which there seems to be a consensus and that is just common sense. These people have done unspeakable things. That delay is unfortunate, and I hope that the rest of the process to get this bill passed will move more quickly.

128 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 139 - Dec/1/22

Dec/12/22 1:15:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to speak right after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I would like to say hello to him today, as I have not seen him in a while. I am happy to see him again and I wish him a happy and healthy new year. I think that is the least I can do. I have been listening to the debate today. There is an expression that says that we cannot be against apple pie. I am trying to find a better expression for the holidays. I could say that we are not against tourtière or Yule logs. I really feel that this is a bill that we all agree on. This makes us all feel good at the end of a year during which the government all too often introduced poorly drafted legislation and another party obstructed proceedings for the sake of being obstructionist and engaging in petty politics. How many times have I said that we need to have more children like us in the room? Actually, I mean the adults in the room. It is what it is. It is a reasonable and sensible position for a bill that must be passed. I rise to speak to the bill that amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions. The bill also seeks to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Finally, the bill would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. This will give it even more weight. The bill also makes amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act. Finally, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to, among other things, provide that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will begin by saying a few words about the bill, I will talk about different points of view, and then I will list some gaps we should address. First, the bill, which passed in the Senate, updates the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make inadmissible to Canada individuals and their immediate families that are targeted by sanctions such as those imposed on businesses and individuals. This is being done in the wake of escalating Russian aggression since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. That is the context for this measure. In 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report, known as the Sergei Magnitsky report, that addressed the approach to Canada's sanctions regimes. Recommendation 13 of that report called for the act to be amended. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison under murky circumstances after exposing the corruption of Russian oligarchs. His death gave rise, in both Canada and the United States, to sanction regimes under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the 2017 Sergei Magnitsky law. I will digress for a moment, because this phenomenon still exists in 2022. My thoughts are with the journalists who died under some very disturbing circumstances in Qatar after speaking out against what was going on with LGBTQ+ communities. Quite frankly, it is worrisome. I hope this bill will be a first step and send a clear message that this is unacceptable in this day and age. Implementing this recommendation became a priority last spring in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, as I said. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, inadmissibility based on sanctions might relate to security, international human rights abuses, criminality, organized crime, health, finances, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or family inadmissibility. It is quite interesting. Furthermore, the bill's inadmissibility provisions include individuals who are members of a non-state organization, such as terrorist groups. That aspect is explicitly set out, which is good. This bill should pass unanimously. As I said, when I was listening to the debates in the House, I got the impression that there was unanimous agreement. That was the case in the Senate. After all, the bill simply brings the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the economic sanctions that Canada wants to impose and must impose on belligerent countries. On May 17 the bill was introduced in the Senate before ending up in the House of the Commons. This bill has been on quite a journey. Rumour has it that the Conservatives and the NDP are going to support the bill. Something interesting is happening as we wrap up before the break. I would like to note what Senator MacDonald said in his speech in the Senate: I recognize that there is jurisprudence that permits literally anyone to make a refugee claim at a Canadian port of entry, but I remain concerned that there are those who will inevitably abuse this, using it as a loophole to gain entry into Canada. Such individuals can then potentially use the slow pace of our judicial system against us in order to remain in Canada for an extended period of time. There is not only the slow pace of the system, but also the means that some may use to take advantage of the situation, including financial means. The Bloc Québécois has called for and defended economic sanctions against Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine. We believe that the individuals targeted by these sanctions should be inadmissible because the sanctions are a foreign policy tool intended to combat violations of international law and international standards. Quebeckers and Canadians alike want Quebec and Canada to be a safe haven for people fleeing war, corruption and persecution, not a refuge for criminals. That has been said before, and we are saying it again. It is all the more important to say this because Granby, in the heart of my riding, is a safe haven, so we experience all kinds of situations. Quebec wants to be a safe haven for people who have fled war, corruption and oppression. Those who start wars and violate human rights should not be welcome here. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑8. According to the UN, Russia has committed numerous war crimes during its invasion of Ukraine, including bombings of civilian areas, a large number of executions, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. That list could grow longer as the conflict drags on, which would be even more worrisome. From the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has brought forward several concrete proposals that were accepted by the government to accelerate the intake of Ukrainian refugees and families. We asked that the requirement for the collection of biometric data for certain categories of refugees be lifted and that flights be chartered. I know that some MPs, like the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, even took Ukrainian families into their homes. In such cases, what can we do to work together and welcome these people? Moreover, it is vital that we update the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so it is consistent with all the sanctions regimes. Bill S‑8 updates this law to add sanctions to the list of grounds of inadmissibility. We want everything to be consistent. I should note that the bill is consistent with the different sanctions implemented under the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act. These regulations have been amended more than 40 times since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in February. We can see that progress is being made. If Bill S‑8 is passed, the various sanctions regimes, such as those under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, or organizations of which Canada is a member, like NATO, could apply. I think that is a good thing. The bill would allow a border officer to turn back a sanctioned individual upon arrival, which would greatly simplify the deportation process. The bill also fixes gaps in the law to ensure that Canada respects the rights of asylum seekers and meets its international obligations in terms of taking in refugees. A person who is targeted by a sanctions regime can claim asylum, but they cannot be granted permanent residence as long as they are targeted by a sanctions regime. That adds weight. Bill S‑8 would also make it possible to fix the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. This correction is in line with the refugee convention, which states that only refugees who have “been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, [constitute] a danger to the community of that country”. That is sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. That is very interesting. I would like to close with a bit of compassion. Beyond what we are talking about today and the debate on how people are welcomed here, I want to point out that, as I mentioned, Granby is a welcoming place. I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work of Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, or SERY, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. This organization helps newcomers to integrate. It does an outstanding job for the community and the region. As its slogan so eloquently says, “our home is your home”. I would like to end on that positive note and recognize the good work of the people at SERY.

1711 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 139 - Dec/1/22

Dec/1/22 6:12:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-203

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning Mathieu Caron, a man from Sherbrooke whose podcast helped me better understand what it is like to be an adult living with autism. Hi Mathieu. Today I am talking about Bill S-203, which would provide for the development of a federal framework designed to support autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers. It directs the Minister of Health to develop a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder. The national framework must identify measures relating to research, culture and tax benefits, among other things. The minister must consult with other relevant federal ministers, civil society groups, and provincial governments and the Government of Quebec, including their ministers of health. Lastly, the bill provides for the tabling of a report in Parliament, as proposed by Quebec senator Marie‑Françoise Mégie, who is also a doctor. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee and be amended in such a way as to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. In my speech, I will discuss the pros and cons of this bill, share examples from Quebec and conclude with a reminder about the importance of investing in health. To begin with, in 2019, the Minister of Health's mandate letter directed her to “[w]ork collaboratively with provinces, territories, families and stakeholders toward the creation of a national autism strategy”. On October 27, 2020, the Government of Canada announced $1.46 million for the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, or CAHS, to lead consultations on a national autism strategy. The CAHS report was released in May 2022, and the Public Health Agency of Canada hosted a national virtual conference on November 15 and 16, 2022, to inform the development of a national strategy. As a reminder, autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition. The term refers to a range of disorders characterized by difficulties with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and non-verbal communication. Individuals on the autism spectrum may also have co-occurring health conditions that affect their overall physical health, including their mental health. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, approximately one in 50 Canadian children and youth, or 2%, have autism. That number has gone up over time. In Quebec, the annual prevalence of ASD in children aged one to 17 has been growing strongly, rising from one per 1,000 in 2000-01 to more than four per 1,000 in 2014-15. This prevalence differs according to the child's sex and age. It was 7.3 and 1.8 per 1,000 among boys and girls, respectively, in 2014-15. People on the autism spectrum need support in various areas, such as housing, employment, education and, of course, health services. Within its areas of jurisdiction, the federal government can play a role in supporting these people and their families. Autism intersects with other identities such as race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, gender and sexuality, and that intersectionality creates diversity in experiences and needs that must be taken into account. People with autism do not always feel safe or meaningfully included in their communities. Such experiences can have harmful outcomes to their health, safety and quality of life. We must work harder to include them. Stigma and discrimination can be addressed by shifting public attitudes towards autism acceptance and awareness through public campaigns, social contact, training, and education programs. The physical and emotional safety of people with autism can be fostered by promoting autism-inclusive, neuro-affirming and accessible spaces, programs and understanding in local communities. Best practices for suicide prevention can also be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals with autism at risk for suicide. Improving the accessibility and inclusion of public transportation, recreational facilities, leisure programs, and technology can enable community participation of people with autism. Quebec and every province and territory offer autism diagnostic and support services, yet there is wide variability in what is available, which can contribute to delays and disparities. Some people with autism are particularly disadvantaged, such as those living in rural and remote areas, equity-seeking groups, and adults with autism. Research to develop valid and meaningful strengths-based diagnostic tools and improve access to diagnostic assessments for adults with autism is also suggested. Adopting family-centred services available across the lifespan can promote the health and well-being of the entire family. It also empowers families to be involved in service delivery. Young autistic children benefit from early access to supports and services because this is a time of significant development. Equitable access to school and community supports across a range of life domains can promote academic success, life and social skills, and improve mental health. Implementing health and education transition policies and practices may help manage and prevent mental and physical health challenges and promote better adult outcomes. However, research about autism in adulthood is limited. More than half of Canadians with autism rely on disability benefits. Academic supports and accommodations available in post-secondary institutions do not always meet the diverse range of autistic students' needs and abilities, which means that they are still not enrolling to the same extent as non-autistic and other disabled students. Some ways to create more inclusive workplaces, which is also important, and to improve employment outcomes can involve providing autism-inclusive supports and accommodations, giving access to supported work experience and internships, addressing benefit disincentives, and promoting workplace autism acceptance. Mr. Caron spoke at length about this with me. With the limited availability of affordable housing in many regions, autism-inclusive housing is in even shorter supply across Canada, and the need will only grow. Second, with its generous social safety net, Quebec already offers a wide range of services for individuals with autism. The Bloc Québécois hopes that the strategy will recognize these efforts, and that Quebec will not be penalized for its generous social benefits. We also have some excellent examples in Quebec. Les Grands Ballets Canadiens de Montréal offers a program called “dance for well-being”. This great model contributes to the well-being of people living with autism spectrum disorder, their families and caregivers through the benefits of dance. Quebec offers a wide range of services for people with a physical or intellectual disability or an autism spectrum disorder to develop, maintain and compensate for their disabilities and promote their autonomy and social participation. These services are also intended for family and loved ones. They are divided into three categories. One category is local services that are often offered in the individual's living environments, such as the home, school or workplace. They aim to compensate for functional disabilities and reduce the risk of harm to ensure the safety of activities related to lifestyle. Examples include home support services, residential services, support for meaningful and rewarding activities, and support services for family and friends. I would like to highlight the work that has been done for the past 45 years by the Fédération québécoise de l'autisme, a provincial group of organizations and individuals who are concerned about the interests of people with autism, their families and friends. This federation defends their rights, supports community life, informs and instructs Quebeckers on issues related to autism, and participates in research. There are 16 regional autism associations in Quebec. Associate members include other associations, early childhood centres, rehabilitation centres, school boards, schools, hospitals and private clinics. Everyone works together. The regional autism associations are community organizations primarily made up of parents, and their shared mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of people with autism in order to enable them to lead a dignified life and achieve the greatest degree of social autonomy possible. Third, I certainly must mention the fact that the Bloc Québécois is adamant that delivery of health services is not a federal jurisdiction. It refuses to allow the federal government to impose its standards and ways of doing things on Quebec and the provinces. As such, the Bloc Québécois wants to emphasize that one component of the national strategy, timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder, is not under federal jurisdiction. When it comes to delivering health care services, the best thing the federal government can do is increase health transfers. That is why the Bloc Québécois will seek to amend Bill S‑203 to ensure that it respects Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. In closing, I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal, provincial and Quebec health ministers' meeting, which took place from November 7 to 9, 2022, and ended inconclusively. The only solution is higher transfers. The Bloc Québécois supports Quebec and the provinces' unified demand that the federal government raise health transfers from 22% to 35%. This permanent increase is what will help people living with autism spectrum disorder. Again, only a 35% contribution from the feds will enable people to live with autism spectrum disorder. In closing, I thank the Granby association for intellectual disabilities and autism. I had the opportunity to visit this organization recently, and the people there are doing absolutely terrific work. Quebec has plenty of wonderful organizations like this one. I hope the federal government will provide health transfers so that we in Quebec can continue to help them and help people with autism.

1617 words

All Topics

Dec/1/22 5:59:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-203

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very moving speech. In my personal experience, I had the good fortune of being involved with a magnificent youth hostel, and the people who helped us during the day were people on the autism spectrum. What a fantastic experience it was. It opened my eyes to the need to include them. My question is the following. In Quebec, we have so many good initiatives. Is my colleague open to referring the bill to committee to benefit from all the good things happening for people with autism in Quebec's health and social services system?

102 words

All Topics

Oct/31/22 6:01:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, with whom I recently had the pleasure of attending the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Kigali. She and I met with the same Ukrainian elected representatives and observed the same geopolitical issues and the rise of a kind of autocracy and anti-West movements. I want to go back to Bill S‑5 because it is crucial. We know that international conflicts, food insecurity and climate change are connected, and we know they will exacerbate global hunger issues. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about farmers. Farmers really want to be part of the solution to develop better food resilience and be supported through this transition. This is crucial, and it is related to what we are talking about in Bill S‑5 because it has to do with the traceability of what we eat and the safety of the products we ingest.

166 words

All Topics

Oct/31/22 4:12:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his speech, in which he referred to Brian Mulroney. I would like to hear him talk about the fact that Mr. Mulroney recently said that he no longer recognizes himself in the new version of the Conservative Party, particularly because it refused to acknowledge climate change.

58 words

All Topics

Oct/31/22 1:27:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, that is why I pointed out that there is still a lot of work to be done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly with my colleague from Repentigny. A lot of work still needs to be done to rethink this legislation and look at what is missing from it. That issue has already been addressed. As I said, Quebec has basically enshrined this quasi-constitutional right in law, something that Canada has not done and should do. I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development can examine this bill and propose new improvements to address this type of shortcoming.

108 words

All Topics

Oct/31/22 1:25:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, it always surprises me to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about the division of power, about what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as I see it, and under federal jurisdiction, as he sees it. I have said this before, but I want to say it again for his sake. This issue has to be as non-partisan as possible because everyone has the right to a healthy environment. The problem is that the Liberals and the Conservatives politicize this issue far too often. I would even go so far as to say that the federal government has nothing to teach us. So much of what Liberal Party members do is greenwashing.

115 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 99 - Sep/21/22

Oct/31/22 1:14:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an ECOSPHERE fair on the environment for more than 10 years. I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives. When I agreed to be an administrator for the ECOSPHERE fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic. That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters. That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves. We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty. The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for. If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer. Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers. When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022. Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers. If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas. The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad. My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability. He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—

1633 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22

Sep/21/22 5:44:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding disclosure of information by jurors, because it interests me. Last June, I listened carefully to my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord's speech on the subject, followed the debate and asked a question. I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I have substituted on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and even the Standing Committee on National Defence when they were dealing with very sensitive issues, such as rape and other types of sexual violence, so I understand the effect that this type of speech can have. That being said, Bill S‑206 amends the Criminal Code “to provide that the prohibition against the disclosure of information relating to jury proceedings does not apply, in certain circumstances, in respect of disclosure by jurors to health care professionals”. The bill would enable jurors to disclose information that they heard during a trial or jury proceedings when consulting with a health care professional, whether it be a psychiatrist, doctor or psychologist. The Bloc Québécois's position could not be clearer. We fully support this bill. Jurors take on a very big responsibility, and that responsibility itself can affect people who have a hard time being forced to make decisions that could change several people's lives. The juror may then be exposed to horrific testimony or evidence, compounding the trauma. Today I want to speak from a legal perspective. I will be talking about the help that jurors need to cope with what they hear and about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder in some cases. I remind members that these people do not choose to become jurors. They are selected and have a legal obligation to fulfill that duty. They are not always prepared to live with what they hear. The legislator must help make this duty as painless as possible. Some jurors have their lives upended and are left to deal with their trauma alone. The government has a responsibility to these people. Furthermore, if the juror feels the need to consult a professional who can help them overcome the trauma they have experienced, that professional is also bound by professional confidentiality requirements. Currently, section 649 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence for jurors to disclose non-public information about the trial they are sitting on. The section states: Every member of a jury, and every person providing technical, personal, interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, who, except for the purposes of (a) an investigation of an alleged offence under subsection 139(2) in relation to a juror, or (b) giving evidence in criminal proceedings in relation to such an offence, discloses any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. The jury secrecy rule, also known as “Lord Mansfield's rule”, is a cornerstone of common law and the British criminal justice system, which I heard about while studying law. The rule not only protects members of the jury, it also protects the integrity of the deliberation process and the validity of the decision. Jurors' contribution to a trial is an important one. It strengthens public trust in the justice system because decisions are not made in an insular fashion by a single individual mechanically interpreting the law. The jury's importance has been noted and commented on in many different rulings, but one of the most eloquent was written by Justice L'Heureux‑Dubé, who neatly summed it up as follows: The jury, through its collective decision making, is an excellent fact finder; due to its representative character, it acts as the conscience of the community; the jury can act as the final bulwark against oppressive laws or their enforcement; it provides a means whereby the public increases its knowledge of the criminal justice system and it increases, through the involvement of the public, societal trust in the system as a whole. Lord Mansfield's rule is guided by three principles. There are three main rationales for the jury secrecy rule. The first rationale is that “confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred”. The second rationale is “the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement”. Similarly, the rule also seeks to ensure that the “deliberations remain untainted by contact with information or individuals from outside the jury”. The third rationale is “the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals...This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy”. Allowing a juror to consult a mental or physical health professional is not likely to violate any of these principles. This was also the view expressed by Vanessa MacDonnell of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association while testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2018. We have been discussing this for four years. She specifically said: “For many of the concerns that animate the juror secrecy rule, such as the desire for decisions to be final, the desire to preserve the integrity of the deliberation process, and preventing jurors from being subsequently harassed, none of those concerns are really at play if you create a narrow exception”. That argument is even stronger should the therapy take place after the trial has ended. Bearing in mind the importance of helping jurors, the strongest argument in favour of relaxing the jury secrecy rule is the fact that physical and mental health care professionals are members of professional associations and are bound by the professional confidentiality obligations set out in their association's codes of conduct. Quebec's Professional Code, chapter C‑26, sets out strict guidelines for professionals who are likely to come in contact with personal and confidential information. Division III of this legislation reserves the titles of certain professions for registered members of the relevant professional order who have a valid permit. This is the case for social workers, psychologists, human resource advisers and psychoeducators. Section 60.4 of that legislation states that every professional must preserve the secrecy of all confidential information except in certain circumstances. If a professional is being sued by their client, they can sometimes disclose information that is required for their defence, even if such information is confidential. Furthermore, a professional can disclose confidential information “with the authorization of his client or where so ordered or expressly authorized by law...in order to prevent an act of violence, including a suicide, where he has reasonable cause to believe that there is a serious risk of death or serious bodily injury threatening a person or an identifiable group of persons and where the nature of the threat generates a sense of urgency”. In all of these scenarios, the professional can disclose only information that is relevant to the situation at hand. It would be surprising if highly specific details of witness testimony or court proceedings had to be shared in the case of any of these exceptions. The legislation specifically states that the “professional must furnish and at all times maintain security to cover any liability he may incur because of any fault committed in the practice of his profession”. Additional privacy protections are also included, namely the fact that the “professional must respect the right of his client to cause to be corrected any information that is inaccurate, incomplete or ambiguous with regard to the purpose for which it was collected, contained in a document concerning him in any record established in his respect. He must also respect the right of his client to cause to be deleted any information that is outdated or not justified by the object of the record, or to prepare written comments and file them in the record”. There are similar codes of conduct in the other Canadian provinces, including Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. There is also a Canadian code of ethics that takes into account the provinces' legislation and regulations. Let us talk about post-traumatic stress disorder. There have been countless media reports about jurors developing PTSD after sitting through gruesome trials. The case of young Victoria Stafford is one example. In conclusion, I am well aware that the trauma jurors go through can lead to PTSD. Jurors themselves have said the horrific cases they heard left them scarred. There is also the case of Mark Farrant, who was a juror on a murder trial involving a young woman who had been severely burned. As a student at the CEGEP de Jonquière in 2011, I researched PTSD in the armed forces. The consequences can take a toll on family members, in the form of alcoholism, violence or mental health problems. We need to realize that and take action as a society.

1625 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 70 - May/12/22

Jun/9/22 5:50:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, jury service is mandatory, but people are not always ready to hear all the horrific details in the testimony. I find it interesting that former jurors could also benefit from assistance and support in recognition of all that they saw and experienced. That was another proposal. We are all well aware of the long-term negative effects that PTSD can have on jurors. That is why it is important that my colleague's bill be retroactive to help those who have already gone through this kind of experience.

94 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

May/12/22 5:50:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on the bill. As he mentioned, this week, we are highlighting the importance of jurors' work within our justice system. Jury duty is an obligation. Because it is an obligation, the government has to help jurors as best it can by making their task less arduous. The testimony in certain trials can be difficult to listen to. Would recognizing the possibility of PTSD in that context be a way to help jurors in some of these cases?

86 words

All Topics